Blog

The shooting death of an unarmed teenager in North County this weekend has shocked St. Louis and brought attention from around the country and around the world. There has been a pit in my stomach since hearing of the death of Michael Brown and the subsequent response, which last night included rioting and looting by people who have no investment in the community they performed those heinous acts in. But it is not to give the violent minority more attention that I write this; it is to make whatever small contribution I can to an ongoing conversation about police and the communities they serve.

Below is a letter I have drafted for St. Louis City Mayor Francis Slay. I am a city resident and not a constituent of St. Louis County or Ferguson. But these issues touch the entire St. Louis region and I wished to contact my personal representatives. I am mailing similar copies to St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson and my Alderman, Stephen Conway.

If you are interested, you are more than welcome to use this letter in whole or part to contact your own representatives. Some relevant contact information is below the letter.

My thoughts are with the community members who are truly affected by this. Remember that we are privileged to live in a society based on democratic representation. However imperfect, this system of government does allow our voices to be heard. Be sure to speak loudly and clearly.

Dear Mayor Slay,

A young man named Michael Brown lost his life in Ferguson this weekend. This tragedy—and any loss of such a young life can only be considered as such—has highlighted tensions between communities and their police departments and put St. Louis on the nation’s map for the worst of reasons. I am writing to you not only to express my sadness at this death but also to call for measures that could prevent more violence and lead to swifter justice when police do use force, whether justified or unjustified.

In the twenty-first century, eyewitness accounts are increasingly being supported by audio and video recordings of events. As the technology improves, the feasibility of video recording increases as the cost plummets. Initial experiments, such as in Rialto, California, show that body worn cameras can reduce the use of force and help officers avoid unfounded complaints. Police forces like the LAPD and civil rights groups like the ACLU support the testing and use of these cameras to calm tense situations, increase mutual respect between police and their communities, and of course to provide evidence in the event of a criminal investigation or loss of life. I am calling for the St. Louis police force to assess, test, and ultimately adopt body worn camera technology.

As a city, as a community, we condemn the violence that outshone peaceful protests this weekend. The relatively few individuals who participated in such behavior must not be given even a modicum of support.

But the wider community of Ferguson, of St. Louis, deserves answers about the shooting of an unarmed teenager. If official cameras recorded the events on Saturday, answers could be quicker to come and justice could be had more swiftly. More significantly, a culture of accountability could have prevented excessive, deadly force. New initiatives will not restore a life that was taken, but could improve our community in the future. I urge you to take action now.

Dating — online or off — is frustrating and bewildering, a long and tearful journey to a great partner. While technology has absolutely transformed how we find potential dates, the most significant change is cultural. Instead of settling down with someone “good enough” we ask so much from our partners now that it’s only natural the search for them is arduous.

Our conversations about civic matters—economic policies, schooling systems, religion, science, and social institutions—are severely lacking in nuance and reasoned debate. Instead, what flourishes are simplistic arguments and ad hominem attacks. This trend is strengthened by a media environment where we can easily consume pieces tailored to our point of view, avoiding challenge and change.

On Being is a weekly public radio show hosted by Krista Tippett ostensibly about religion and spirituality, but now the host of a broader series of discussions called the Civil Conversations Project. I used to turn off On Being when it came on my radio Sunday afternoons, put off by the wispy quality, assuming it was a liberal echo chamber of feel-good, empty spirituality.

But as I would listen in snippets, or accidentally turn it on in the car, I found it to be a series of careful, respectful dialogues about difficult subjects, with religion, of course, among the trickiest.

So it did not altogether surprise me to find myself enchanted by arecent episode on gay marriage, which really became a window into how to have civil debates. An interview of David Blankenhorn and Jonathon Rauch—originally on opposite sides of the gay marriage debate, and now friends in agreement on many issues—the discussion covered David’s changed mind on gay marriage, but much more interestingly their process of what they called “achieving disagreement.”

For this post I really want to excerpt some longer segments that, I think, speak for themselves. I encourage listening to the full episode. To have two people agree about how to disagree, that are intellectually honest in their point of view and empathetic enough to consider the other side is tragically rare these days and models a better way to converse. I think we can learn from them how to continue to passionately disagree while remaining not just polite, but truly civil.